31 réponses à ce sujet

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

So in my philosophy class we recently started discussing the morality of punishment, specifically in regards to the idea of retributionitivism (or the idea that punishment is warrented because a criminal deserves it).  The crux of this idea is that some people commit acts that are simply too horrific to go unpunished.

Anders, throughout the game, seems to embody this idea of Retributionitivism. He activly disregards the threat that mages might pose, in lue of trying to avenge injustices commited. At one point he even attempts to kill a circle mage simply because she does not actively oppose the Templars (thereby doing an injustice to herself and other incarcerated mages) .

The Templars, on the other hand, seem to govern strictly through Utilitarian ideology. They try to maximize the total amount of happiness in a community, regardless of the wrongs commited against a small group of people. They incarcerate mages because the mages might pose a threat, not because they've actually done anything wrong. In other words, they punish mages because it is better for society as a whole.

In light of this dichotemy, I think that the motivations behind Ander's seemingly irrational final act make sense. He is punishing the entity ultimately responsible for the injustices commited against countless innocent mages; he is punishing the chantry.

Thoughts?

[Lynata]

Hmm, I've always thought that Anders' action would make sense from his perspective - in his eyes, mages are treated unfairly simply by being treated differently, completely dismissing the downsides that would come with the alternative he himself puts forth in DA:O (doing it like in Tevinter ).

The problem is that he basically attempts to punish injustice with other injustice. He kills innocent mages for "collaborating" with his handpicked enemy, and his ultimate intention is to force every single mage into an all-out-war for his personal belief in freedom, regardless of whether they want it or not (-> Orsino's reaction to the bombing).

In essence, Anders/Justice is playing god, putting his own desires over those of anyone else. Those who are not of his opinion must be forced to work with him anyways - either by betrayal (Hawke) or by simply leaving them no other choice (Kirkwall Circle) - or killed for being "wrong" in his eyes (Ella). On his personal quest to better the situation of his peers, he has become blind to the crimes and misery he himself forces upon anyone meets.

Modifié par Lynata, 21 mars 2012 - 03:22 .

[Lazy Jer]

Well to quote the old song "I don't know much about philosophy..." but I'll ring in here.

First a question to the OP, which mage are you refering to that Anders attempts to kill, is it Ella? If so, I more read that he attempted to kill her because she accused him of being a demon and linked that to being in legue with the Templars. In short I took it as an act of rage with a made-up personal justification.

In regards to the bulk of your thread...well I haven't wikipedia'ed Retirbutionitivism or Utilitarian ideology yet, so I won't ring in on that, but I will say that Anders confesses his motivations for attacking the Chantry is not that they were responsible for the injustices against mages, but rather because the Kirkwall Chantry was an entity that could have negotiated between the Templars and the Circle Mages. It was clear that tention between those two factions were at an all time high in Kirkwall and the Chantry represented a chance for compromise. Anders wanted to end any chance of that compromise.

[Satyricon331]

I think it's hard to see Templars as utilitarians. Utilitarians would use cost-benefit analysis, but the Templars seem to take a more rule-based (deontological) approach (magic is the fruit of the Old Gods, which were sinful; all the mages we capture must worship the Maker regardless of personal preferences; etc.). They seem to give very little weight to mages' utility; a utilitarian who thought that segregating mages was the best option would still want the mages to be happy within their towers. Then there's the Templars' use of Tranquility as a punishment (surely there are ways to deter bad behavior that wouldn't prevent the experience of any positive utility at all) - although this isn't to say Tranquility would always be bad under utilitarianism (perhaps weak mages?). And I'd suspect Templars would always view blood magic as an act too horrific to go unpunished, as you say, regardless of the circumstances or the benefits the blood magic offered.

I thought Anders had a mix of motives - some of it was vengeance/retribution, and then some of it was to benefit the mages - but many of his acts are just ones of rage, as Lazy Jer puts it, and wouldn't fit any of the justificatory frameworks well, imo.

[Lynata]

Satyricon331 wrote...
They seem to give very little weight to mages' utility; a utilitarian who thought that segregating mages was the best option would still want the mages to be happy within their towers. Then there's the Templars' use of Tranquility as a punishment (surely there are ways to deter bad behavior that wouldn't prevent the experience of any positive utility at all) - although this isn't to say Tranquility would always be bad under utilitarianism (perhaps weak mages?). And I'd suspect Templars would always view blood magic as an act too horrific to go unpunished, as you say, regardless of the circumstances or the benefits the blood magic offered.

Segregating mages makes them more difficult to control (or annull), and the Rite of Tranquility is most often used on weak mages as an option to avoid the Harrowing.* Blood magic also always weakens the Veil, making it easier for demons to cross over. Regarding spells such as mind control as too dangerous for anyone to use (and thus outlawing this school of magic) could be seen as deontological - but it could just as well be regarded as pragmatism, as blood magic's disadvantages (making mages far more dangerous to society) outweigh its advantages, so it is better to simply eliminate its study altogether.

The last point is debatable, of course, as generally it would be preferrable to use blood magic if it'd be the only way to save the world - just like it'd be preferrable to sacrifice a million humans if that would be the only way, yet under normal circumstances you'd still have laws against mass murder. The templars just operate on the "normal circumstances" approach (which one might argue is fine for daily life), whereas the Grey Wardens are using all the tools they can get - including blood mages.

All in all, I'd say you're still on to something (especially concerning the religious influences), but that the templars are justifying a generally deontological approach with utilitarian reasoning. Or something like that.

From the DA P&P:
"So it is that the fears of the common people are not unjustified. All mages are susceptible to demonic possession, and even the strongest must stay on their guard. This is why the Chantry created the Circle of Magi in the first place. If mages must exist so their power can be wielded against the darkspawn, so be it. The Chantry insists, however, that they must be watched carefully and that those who endanger Thedas be dealt with before possession can take place."

(*: from how it is explained in the RPG books, Tranquility subjects are generally determined by the Senior Enchanters when young adepts appear too weak to make it through the Harrowing, and many are said to volunteer out of fear rather than going through the test. The Rite itself is performed by a group of mages. It appears that the templars can command a particularly troublesome mage to be made Tranquil as well if he poses a threat, but this doesn't seem to be done very often - actually, it is so rare that Anders believes this is against Chantry law)

Interesting reads on the latter subject:
http://dragonage.wik...y:_The_Tranquil
http://dragonage.wik...of_the_Tranquil

Modifié par Lynata, 22 mars 2012 - 11:28 .

[Satyricon331]

Lynata wrote...
Segregating mages makes them more difficult to control (or annull), and the Rite of Tranquility is most often used on weak mages as an option to avoid the Harrowing.* Blood magic also always weakens the Veil, making it easier for demons to cross over. Regarding spells such as mind control as too dangerous for anyone to use (and thus outlawing this school of magic) could be seen as deontological - but it could just as well be regarded as pragmatism, as blood magic's disadvantages (making mages far more dangerous to society) outweigh its advantages, so it is better to simply eliminate its study altogether.

The last point is debatable, of course, as generally it would be preferrable to use blood magic if it'd be the only way to save the world - just like it'd be preferrable to sacrifice a million humans if that would be the only way, yet under normal circumstances you'd still have laws against mass murder. The templars just operate on the "normal circumstances" approach (which one might argue is fine for daily life), whereas the Grey Wardens are using all the tools they can get - including blood mages.

All in all, I'd say you're still on to something (especially concerning the religious influences), but that the templars are justifying a generally deontological approach with utilitarian reasoning. Or something like that.*snip*

I don't really follow that first paragraph, could you clarify?  I would think segregating mages makes them easier to control.  I agree they use Tranquility on weaker mages - I think it's there could even be a utilitarian argument for the practice (I just meant to leave it as an open question, rather than question whether it happens), though not so much for Tranquility as a punishment (not in normal circumstances, anyway).  If you're right that using Tranquility as punishment is rare then it's less of an issue (but that's not the impression I got from the games, at least - they either execute or tranquilize Jowan after the Redcliffe quest, for instance).

Although overall I agree - I didn't mean to suggest they were deontological, just that their approach is more deontological than utilitarian.  It just seems to me that maximizing welfare in each situation they're in seems to be pretty far from the Templars' modus operandi.  I guess they're like any government - they just do things and seek to rationalize it rather than pick an ethic and follow it 

[Maria Caliban]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

So in my philosophy class we recently started discussing the morality of punishment, specifically in regards to the idea of retributionitivism (or the idea that punishment is warrented because a criminal deserves it).  The crux of this idea is that some people commit acts that are simply too horrific to go unpunished.

Retributionitivism is a form of vengeance. Yes, I'd say it fits Anders.

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

The Templars, on the other hand, seem to govern strictly through Utilitarian ideology. They try to maximize the total amount of happiness in a community, regardless of the wrongs commited against a small group of people. They incarcerate mages because the mages might pose a threat, not because they've actually done anything wrong. In other words, they punish mages because it is better for society as a whole.

This isn't quite as good.

For one thing, there are those within society, the chantry, and the Templars who consider mages as inherently bad. Through Anders, the game makes parallels between the treatment of mages and the treatment of sexual minorities and the mentally ill in the real world. Just like the original game had parallels between elves and real world ethnic minorities.

Moreover, you're missing the fact that there are both Templars and mages who see the Circle as a good thing for mages.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 mars 2012 - 02:09 .

[Plaintiff]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...
Anders, throughout the game, seems to embody this idea of Retributionitivism. He activly disregards the threat that mages might pose, in lue of trying to avenge injustices commited.

False. He is fully aware of and acknowledges the hypothetical risk mages pose to society; his counterarguments are that a) non-mages are jsut as capable of equal or greater atrocities and imprisoning someone for what they might do is wrong.

While vengeance might serve as a secondary motivator, Anders' primary goal is the freedom of mages. Up until the final part of the game, his methods of acheiving this consist solely of a pamphlet designed to provoke discussion. He's about as threatening as your average Jehovah's Witness.

At one point he even attempts to kill a circle mage simply because she does not actively oppose the Templars (thereby doing an injustice to herself and other incarcerated mages).

Gross oversimplification of the situation. Anders is not in control of his actions at that time. His body is being dominated by another personality, Justice, the Fade Spirit, who is, in turn, literally incapable of understanding the nuances of humanity. It is possible for Anders to regain control of his body before Justice can act, at which point the girl will be spared.

The Templars, on the other hand, seem to govern strictly through Utilitarian ideology.

No. They govern through a religious ideaology, namely that magic is inherently evil and the source of all Thedas's woes, and that nothing good can come of it. Their arguments are grounded in zealotry, not rationality.

They try to maximize the total amount of happiness in a community, regardless of the wrongs commited against a small group of people. They incarcerate mages because the mages might pose a threat, not because they've actually done anything wrong. In other words, they punish mages because it is better for society as a whole.

Also false. They give no thought to how a community might be negatively harmed by the incarceration of a mage. They care nothing for the families that are sundered, and they pay no heed to any good the mage might've done. For instance, they give no thought to the good Anders is doing, serving as a healer to the poor of Kirkwall.

They also pay almost no attention to any community problems that are not mage-related.

In light of this dichotemy, I think that the motivations behind Ander's seemingly irrational final act make sense. He is punishing the entity ultimately responsible for the injustices commited against countless innocent mages; he is punishing the chantry.

Thoughts?

Anders' actions always made sense. The Chantry is a fascist theocratic power, and its tyranny affects more than just mages. It's not solely an issue of punishment. All things being equal, Thedas would literally be better off without it.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 mars 2012 - 04:47 .

[jb1983]

I don't think either label is correct.

Anders wants to do what he believes is right regardless of the cost. It's not necessarily retribution, but more on standing for a principle in a zealous way. One could say that he's adopted a zealous form of virtue ethics with an emphasis on justice (no pun intended). In virtue ethics, you act rightly regardless of the consequences, even if this requires you to act in violence at times (hence the Just War theory). I'm not fully convinced that this ethical theory would explain Anders though, mostly because virtue ethics requires one take all the virtues into account and not just one.

One could argue that, instead, Anders is an idealist and as such cares little for the reality of a situation. He sees something that is blatantly wrong and believing that he can bring about an ideal in the real world, seeks to do so through extreme measures. By pursuing this ideal, he ends up causing more harm. But to him, this doesn't matter because the pursuit of the ideal is all that matters; he must enact the ideal.

The Templars, by contrast, are certainly deontologists. There are certain rules that must be in place for society to function properly and these rules cannot be broken. Thus, if one must subject humans to horrible treatment, so long as the rules dictate it as such then it's justifiable. If the Templars were Utilitarians, they would find ways to use the Mages in a way that benefited society. Instead, they have no problem segregating mages. Some might want to argue that they're consequentialist for this because they're acting on the potential consequences of letting mages free, but the more hardcore Templars believe that even good mages are to be locked up. This places them squarely in the deontological camp, that the rules state mages are bad, therefore they must be treated as bad.

Keep looking for fun ways to apply philosophy to every day life, and hopefully you'll pursue philosophy as a major course of study. Contrary to popular belief, you can actually make a lot of money with a degree in philosophy (it's one of the highest paid liberal arts degrees you can get).

[Lynata]

 

Satyricon331 wrote...
I don't really follow that first paragraph, could you clarify?  I would think segregating mages makes them easier to control.

Well, for one a Circle of Magi is supposed to police itself - the First Enchanter is responsible for everyday proceedings and the conduct of his mages, with the templars just standing guard and keeping watch. I'd assume it is easier for other mages to spot "suspicious" magic (like Wynne in that cutscene cut from DA:O when the Warden was using blood magic) rather than a templar who doesn't quite understand how it works. Furthermore, a Circle Tower mosto ften is an isolated fortress designed to contain the risks posed by those who inhibit it - complete with a full garrison of templars to man its exists and (hopefully) ensure that an Abomination, if one happens, doesn't get out.

You just can't provide the same level of safety for mages living apart from each other as it'd require every single mage having his own personal mini-tower with a full squad of templars watching his back and doing different shifts to ensure there's always at least one standing guard.

Satyricon331 wrote... If you're right that using Tranquility as punishment is rare then it's less of an issue (but that's not the impression I got from the games, at least - they either execute or tranquilize Jowan after the Redcliffe quest, for instance).

Practicing blood magic is a capital offence punishable by death, yes - I don't recall Tranquility being mentioned in this instance, though I could remember wrong. I also think he was about to be executed by the arl's men, though this is besides the point. 

--

Plaintiff wrote...
No. They govern through a religious ideaology, namely that magic is inherently evil and the source of all Thedas's woes, and that nothing good can come of it.

Contradicted by the actual text in the Chant of Light ("the Make") and the teachings of the current Divine. There are certainly templars - and other people, even mages - who hold this view, but the fact remains that this isn't the official stance.

 

Plaintiff wrote... 
For instance, they give no thought to the good Anders is doing, serving as a healer to the poor of Kirkwall.

Of course you realize this could be because they don't know, given that he was ... you know, hiding there.

Plaintiff wrote... 
They also pay almost no attention to any community problems that are not mage-related.

Because that is, frankly, not their job but that of the Chantry and the civilian government.
Though they are occasionally sent out to deal with bandits and protect refugees, as was the case in DA:O.

Also, some people are way too fond of throwing that "fascism" term around simply because it sounds evil...
http://en.wikipedia....ion_to_religion 

--

jb1983 wrote...
If the Templars were Utilitarians, they would find ways to use the Mages in a way that benefited society.

But doesn't the Chantry do this by sending mages to fight the Darkspawn, making them learn healing magic and craft enchanted items to sell to the populace? Although there admittedly is a strong overlap between a utilitarian and a religiously inspired approach again:

"To one degree or another, every circle is a war college of sorts. The Chantry never forgets that its greatest use for mages is in fighting darkspawn, particularly during a Blight. Philosophically, this is seen as proper penance for the ancient hubris of the magisters of the Tevinter Imperium, who offended the Maker with their trespass in the Golden City and brought on the First Blight. Thus, even in peacetime, much of a mage's training emphasizes battle magic. Every Circle mage learns to wield the arcane lance, and most master one or more combat spells. They train to keep their wits about them in battle and wield their powers to defend themselves and their allies."

[LobselVith8]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

So in my philosophy class we recently started discussing the morality of punishment, specifically in regards to the idea of retributionitivism (or the idea that punishment is warrented because a criminal deserves it).  The crux of this idea is that some people commit acts that are simply too horrific to go unpunished.

Anders, throughout the game, seems to embody this idea of Retributionitivism. He activly disregards the threat that mages might pose, in lue of trying to avenge injustices commited. At one point he even attempts to kill a circle mage simply because she does not actively oppose the Templars (thereby doing an injustice to herself and other incarcerated mages).

Anders doesn't disregard the threat that mages pose, he disagrees with the Chantry controlled Circles, and provides an alternative to the system (in his manifesto). Anders is looking to emancipate mages from a system that he is personally familiar with, and views as unjust. What transpired to Karl (who was made tranquil illegally) ultimately leads him down the road to work with the mage underground.

Your reference addresses Justice - not Anders. Ella was confronted by Justice (or Vengeance) at that moment, and it takes Hawke to talk Justice down in order to restore control to Anders in order to prevent Justice from killing Ella.

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

The Templars, on the other hand, seem to govern strictly through Utilitarian ideology. They try to maximize the total amount of happiness in a community, regardless of the wrongs commited against a small group of people. They incarcerate mages because the mages might pose a threat, not because they've actually done anything wrong. In other words, they punish mages because it is better for society as a whole.

Mages are incarcerated in Circle Towers because of the peaceful protest mages lead against their lack of rights, which is addressed in "History of the Circle." Divine Ambrosia II was considering an Exalted March on her own cathedral (where the mages were staging the nonviolent protest).

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

In light of this dichotemy, I think that the motivations behind Ander's seemingly irrational final act make sense. He is punishing the entity ultimately responsible for the injustices commited against countless innocent mages; he is punishing the chantry.

Thoughts?

People have their own opinions on the dichotomy between mages and templars. Anders, for instance, sees the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery - a viewpoint shared by the historical Aldenon the Great (who co-founded the nation of Ferelden from warring teyrnirs with Calenhad), and even by a pro-mage Hawke.

[jb1983]

Lynata wrote...

 

jb1983 wrote...
If the Templars were Utilitarians, they would find ways to use the Mages in a way that benefited society.

But doesn't the Chantry do this by sending mages to fight the Darkspawn, making them learn healing magic and craft enchanted items to sell to the populace? Although there admittedly is a strong overlap between a utilitarian and a religiously inspired approach again:

"To one degree or another, every circle is a war college of sorts. The Chantry never forgets that its greatest use for mages is in fighting darkspawn, particularly during a Blight. Philosophically, this is seen as proper penance for the ancient hubris of the magisters of the Tevinter Imperium, who offended the Maker with their trespass in the Golden City and brought on the First Blight. Thus, even in peacetime, much of a mage's training emphasizes battle magic. Every Circle mage learns to wield the arcane lance, and most master one or more combat spells. They train to keep their wits about them in battle and wield their powers to defend themselves and their allies."

A great observation, one I thought about, but feel that it actually proves the point that they're deontological. 

Notice that the Chantry's justification isn't necessarily the utility the mages provide (if it were the utility, they would use them for more than the Darkspawn). Rather, this acts as a way to atone for one's sins. We're still in a rules based ethos; a mage is cursed no matter what, but can atone for this curse if the mage fights against the Darkspawn. That rule provides utility doesn't lend credit to the belief that the Chantry is utilitarian (for instance, we have rules against murder, but there is a high utility with this murder; yet one can be against murder without relying on utilitarian means). 

For the Chantry to be utilitarian, they would need to state, "We do this and that to mages because it works for the greater good." Instead, they do this and that for mages because it's a way for mages to atone for being what they are. 

Really, the only utilitarian force in the game are the Grey Warden. The greater good is the defeat of the Darkspawn, thus any means may be used to achieve this goal. The Chantry will not use blood mages to fight the Darkspawn, showing there is a limit on what they will use (hence the rules reign over the utility of a person), whereas the Wardens will use 1,000 blood mages if they must in order to defeat one dark spawn, which is purely utilitarian. 

[Satyricon331]

Lynata wrote...
Well, for one *snip snip*

It seems like you're arguing they're easier to control and manage when they're segregated into their towers... is that what you meant earlier?  It's also unclear to me what point you're tying this into.  I mean, I'm really not sure at this point whether we're agreeing or not.  

That first paragraph of yours sounds about right to me.  The second one is much less clearly true, but I'd be willing to say there easily could be logistical or resource rationales that would give a tower system a utilitarian rationale.  But that's just the trick; there are very few policies that couldn't be utility-maximizing on some fact set, meaning (usually) you can't just look at policies in a vacuum and conclude the policy maker is utilitarian or not.  I don't know how many resources Thedas countries have to put into managing mages, although it seems fairly clear there are very inexpensive options available for increasing mages' utility that Templars don't pursue.  But even if there aren't, you have to look to their reasoning processes (to sidestep the unknown facts, as it were), and I'm not seeing utilitarian thinking in their black-and-white, rule-based thinking.  I wouldn't go so far as jb1983 as to say they're deontologists necessarily, but it just seems like shoehorning to say they're utilitarian.  (Not that you are

Modifié par Satyricon331, 23 mars 2012 - 10:11 .

[jb1983]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Lynata wrote...
Well, for one *snip snip*

It seems like you're arguing they're easier to control and manage when they're segregated into their towers... is that what you meant earlier?  It's also unclear to me what point you're tying this into.  I mean, I'm really not sure at this point whether we're agreeing or not.  

That first paragraph of yours sounds about right to me.  The second one is much less clearly true, but I'd be willing to say there easily could be logistical or resource rationales that would give a tower system a utilitarian rationale.  But that's just the trick; there are very few policies that couldn't be utility-maximizing on some fact set, meaning (usually) you can't just look at policies in a vacuum and conclude the policy maker is utilitarian or not.  I don't know how many resources Thedas countries have to put into managing mages, although it seems fairly clear there are very inexpensive options available for increasing mages' utility that Templars don't pursue.  But even if there aren't, you have to look to their reasoning processes (to sidestep the unknown facts, as it were), and I'm not seeing utilitarian thinking in their black-and-white, rule-based thinking.  I wouldn't go so far as jb1983 as to say they're deontologists necessarily, but it just seems like shoehorning to say they're utilitarian.  (Not that you are

Just a comment on the deontology - what religious order isn't, in some ways, deontological (or at least flirts with that line)? 

The case I would make against my belief that they're essentialy deontological, or a type of deontology, is that they don't really have a categorical imperative. In other words, their rules aren't based upon that which they wish to see universalized, but rather what they believe to already be universal. This, of course, is a small distinction, but it could disqualify them as being deontological. At the very least, it removes the idea that they would be Kantian deontologists, but could still be a type of deontology. 

Maybe they buy into a type of Divine-Command theory (only a prophet command theory in their situation), which is still deontological, but with a heavy theological mixture. 

Either way, I find this discussion very interesting - I like to see philosophy applied to video games (since my degree is in philosophy, used in business...go figure). I think these games, especially when choices are given, really bring great philosophical problems to the forefront better than any other form of media. 

I am curious about where you'd line the Chantry up on their beliefs...or maybe there's a diferent moral outlook between the Templars and the Chantry. Maybe the Chantry holds more to a divine-command and the Templars are more of a strict deontologist, following the rules.

Personally, I'd love to see these game developers hire philosophers to help with the writing staff, to create very challenging scenarios and outcomes...but of course I'm only saying that because if they ever did open a position like that, I'd send in my résumé immediately (dealing with businesses and business ethics is boring). 

Modifié par jb1983, 23 mars 2012 - 10:23 .

[Satyricon331]

That's an interesting point about the Chantry vs. Templars. It's very clear in "Asunder" they have different approaches, depending on the Divine. It also somewhat undercuts the reasons I had for being reluctant about calling the Templars purely deontological. Their indulgence of the Wardens was one reason, and I had forgotten about it earlier but the phylacteries (blood magic) would be another example where they seem to bend their own rules. But maybe those things are really the Chantry's doing - or perhaps it is the Templars, and a little human hypocrisy doesn't disprove their being deontological.

[Lynata]

jb1983 wrote...
For the Chantry to be utilitarian, they would need to state, "We do this and that to mages because it works for the greater good." Instead, they do this and that for mages because it's a way for mages to atone for being what they are.

Hmm, it might be a case of wording. In the book preceding the one that quote was from it says:

"So it is that the fears of the common people are not unjustified. All mages are susceptible to demonic possession, and even the strongest must stay on their guard. This is why the Chantry created the Circle of Magi in the first place. If mages must exist so their power can be wielded against the darkspawn, so be it. The Chantry insists, however, that they must be watched carefully and those who endanger Thedas be dealt with before possession can take place."

That sounds much more utilitarian, doesn't it? But in essence it's the same... It could well be that this reflects different factions within the Chantry - much like there are those who see magic as a curse and others as a gift (or both), there could also be those who think mages should fight darkspawn as an act of penance whereas others simply regard this as the mages' most useful function.

Or it is a mix of both. From what I've seen, organized religion has a tendency to grant leaders big and small the ability to pursue personal or political goals and then justify them with dogma, sometimes because they are true zealots who believe in their action, other times simply because they need an excuse to "sell" their wishes to the faithful.

The Chantry too is not above "adapting" its own teachings to reflect contemporary developments. An example of this would be the verses about the elven help in Andraste's struggle being removed from the official Chant of Light; obviously an act of historical revisionism with the likely intention to better justify an Exalted March against the Dalish. Though this may also be motivated by a religiously inspired desire to punish the elves for their heretical ways. Or at least this would have been the official explanation. There's a lot of overlap and it becomes hard to discern peoples' motivations.

But basically, it could well be that - back then - people thought "hey, mages are useful, let's keep them" ... and over time, religious dogma has formed around this position.

--

Satyricon331 wrote...
It seems like you're arguing they're easier to control and manage when they're segregated into their towers... is that what you meant earlier?  It's also unclear to me what point you're tying this into.  I mean, I'm really not sure at this point whether we're agreeing or not.  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie] 

Oh wow, I think I totally misunderstood your position. I thought you were talking about segregating the mages from each other - not segregating mages from anyone else. Sorry!

--

Satyricon331 wrote...
Their indulgence of the Wardens was one reason, and I had forgotten about it earlier but the phylacteries (blood magic) would be another example where they seem to bend their own rules.

I don't think phylacteries are blood magic - blood is used as a link to the "target", not to power the spell. At least that's my understanding. In "Asunder", when Knight-Captain Evangeline thinks that the phylacteries are "too close to blood magic" for her, doesn't that imply they are something else?

Modifié par Lynata, 23 mars 2012 - 11:59 .

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

jb1983 wrote...

Anders wants to do what he believes is right regardless of the cost. It's not necessarily retribution, but more on standing for a principle in a zealous way. One could say that he's adopted a zealous form of virtue ethics with an emphasis on justice (no pun intended). In virtue ethics, you act rightly regardless of the consequences, even if this requires you to act in violence at times (hence the Just War theory). I'm not fully convinced that this ethical theory would explain Anders though, mostly because virtue ethics requires one take all the virtues into account and not just one.

One could argue that, instead, Anders is an idealist and as such cares little for the reality of a situation. He sees something that is blatantly wrong and believing that he can bring about an ideal in the real world, seeks to do so through extreme measures. By pursuing this ideal, he ends up causing more harm. But to him, this doesn't matter because the pursuit of the ideal is all that matters; he must enact the ideal.

This makes a lot of sense. I wonder, however, if Ander's idea of justice could also be ascribed to the Moral Education Theory of punishment. What he tries to do, it seems, is not just free mages, but also convince other people that their treatment is unjust; that's the whole point of his manifesto, isn't it? He also seems to obsess over the opinions of others, including Hawke, Carver, Fenris etc... After he fails to convince the Grand Cleric (who happens to represent the neutral ground to the mages/templar debate) to support the mages, he eliminates that neutrality by literally blowing it up. Admittedly, this potentially convinces some people that mages are dangerous, but it also convinces some people that mages are desperate. Regardless, everyone is forced to choose a moral stance.

Keep looking for fun ways to apply philosophy to every day life, and hopefully you'll pursue philosophy as a major course of study. Contrary to popular belief, you can actually make a lot of money with a degree in philosophy (it's one of the highest paid liberal arts degrees you can get).

I find this discussion to be absolutely fascinating--Dragon age, as a whole, has so many ethical dilemnas to ponder... It's nice to able to discuss them in terms of ethics, rather than emotions (although, emotions have a lot to do with ethics, now that I think about it).

[Satyricon331]

Lynata wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...
It seems like you're arguing they're easier to control and manage when they're segregated into their towers... is that what you meant earlier?  It's also unclear to me what point you're tying this into.  I mean, I'm really not sure at this point whether we're agreeing or not.  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie] 

Oh wow, I think I totally misunderstood your position. I thought you were talking about segregating the mages from each other - not segregating mages from anyone else. Sorry!

Sorry I wasn't clear there!

Lynata wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...
Their indulgence of the Wardens was one reason, and I had forgotten about it earlier but the phylacteries (blood magic) would be another example where they seem to bend their own rules.

I don't think phylacteries are blood magic - blood is used as a link to the "target", not to power the spell. At least that's my understanding. In "Asunder", when Knight-Captain Evangeline thinks that the phylacteries are "too close to blood magic" for her, doesn't that imply they are something else?

The wiki links to a David Gaider interview where he says they're a form of blood magic.

~
Also, that quote you mention doesn't sound particularly utilitarian or deontological to me, although if I had to pick I'd go with deontology simply because "must" is a word that often implicates a duty of some sort.

[jb1983]

Satyricon331 wrote...

That's an interesting point about the Chantry vs. Templars. It's very clear in "Asunder" they have different approaches, depending on the Divine. It also somewhat undercuts the reasons I had for being reluctant about calling the Templars purely deontological. Their indulgence of the Wardens was one reason, and I had forgotten about it earlier but the phylacteries (blood magic) would be another example where they seem to bend their own rules. But maybe those things are really the Chantry's doing - or perhaps it is the Templars, and a little human hypocrisy doesn't disprove their being deontological.

Yes, the existential reality of their ethics and the ideal of their ethics are two different things (as it is in real life with anything else). I'm merely pointing to their ideals and ignoring the actions or the beliefs of some individuals. 

I would say that when we see exceptions in existence, it's because there is an overarching rule (even if subconscious) that one must not allow the darkspawn to ravage the land. Thus, certain rules underneath this one are limited when they come in conflict with this overarching rule (hence why some deontologists - though not all - say that lying is wrong in all cases except where lying would prevent you from achieving a greater rule, thus there is a heirarchy of rules...this is a minority view within deontological circles and for good reason...). 

Lynata wrote...

jb1983 wrote...
For the Chantry to be utilitarian, they would need to state, "We do this and that to mages because it works for the greater good." Instead, they do this and that for mages because it's a way for mages to atone for being what they are.

Hmm, it might be a case of wording. In the book preceding the one that quote was from it says:

"So it is that the fears of the common people are not unjustified. All mages are susceptible to demonic possession, and even the strongest must stay on their guard. This is why the Chantry created the Circle of Magi in the first place. If mages must exist so their power can be wielded against the darkspawn, so be it. The Chantry insists, however, that they must be watched carefully and those who endanger Thedas be dealt with before possession can take place."

That sounds much more utilitarian, doesn't it? But in essence it's the same... It could well be that this reflects different factions within the Chantry - much like there are those who see magic as a curse and others as a gift (or both), there could also be those who think mages should fight darkspawn as an act of penance whereas others simply regard this as the mages' most useful function.

Or it is a mix of both. From what I've seen, organized religion has a tendency to grant leaders big and small the ability to pursue personal or political goals and then justify them with dogma, sometimes because they are true zealots who believe in their action, other times simply because they need an excuse to "sell" their wishes to the faithful.

The Chantry too is not above "adapting" its own teachings to reflect contemporary developments. An example of this would be the verses about the elven help in Andraste's struggle being removed from the official Chant of Light; obviously an act of historical revisionism with the likely intention to better justify an Exalted March against the Dalish. Though this may also be motivated by a religiously inspired desire to punish the elves for their heretical ways. Or at least this would have been the official explanation. There's a lot of overlap and it becomes hard to discern peoples' motivations.

But basically, it could well be that - back then - people thought "hey, mages are useful, let's keep them" ... and over time, religious dogma has formed around this position.

I wouldn't say it sounds Utilitarian, Consequentialist maybe, but not Utilitarian. Remember, while all Utilitarians are consequentialists, not all consequentialists are utilitarians. For instance, a Utilitarian approach to the Mages could be one of the following:

1) Allow mages into courts and even to live with nobles, but simply "trim" their population (allow every third child discovered to have magic to live; the others, kill them). This allows mages to accomplish even more good for the greater number of people without giving mages too much power (which would bring harm). 
2) Simply kill all mages, realizing that in the event of a Blight one can rely on the Imperium to supply the necessary mages. 
3) From a more humane perspective, simply find a way to have mages use their abilities for good rather than combat. Thus, instruct them in healing and then send them out into the general populace to help heal. How do you keep them under control? By simply having them live at the expense of a noble, thus there is less incentive to rebel against humans. 

Now, of course we could go on forever with hypotheticals, but the glaring issue is what about the quote you supplied? I would argue that it's not utilitarian because it's not about the "greater good." It's simply about having a stable society, and the rule for a stable society where freedom exists to exist requires that mages not have any power. Thus, the rule must be observed should one desire a stable society (which is innate within everyone, even in video games apparently). 

I do think you could make the case that instead of being deontologists, they are consequentialists, but this would be a difficult case as we're dealing with motives behind ethical actions. Just that there happen to be consequences doesn't mean one is necessarily a consequentialist. 

However, I just simply don't see any Utilitarianism within the Chantry or the Templars; I do, however, see it running rampant in the Wardens (but even then I could argue against that, pointing out that they're simply consequentialist and not even Utilitarians; one could imagine the Wardens sacrificing entire cities just to save a few humans, so long as saving those few humans would ensure the defeat of the blight). 

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

jb1983 wrote...

Anders wants to do what he believes is right regardless of the cost. It's not necessarily retribution, but more on standing for a principle in a zealous way. One could say that he's adopted a zealous form of virtue ethics with an emphasis on justice (no pun intended). In virtue ethics, you act rightly regardless of the consequences, even if this requires you to act in violence at times (hence the Just War theory). I'm not fully convinced that this ethical theory would explain Anders though, mostly because virtue ethics requires one take all the virtues into account and not just one. 

One could argue that, instead, Anders is an idealist and as such cares little for the reality of a situation. He sees something that is blatantly wrong and believing that he can bring about an ideal in the real world, seeks to do so through extreme measures. By pursuing this ideal, he ends up causing more harm. But to him, this doesn't matter because the pursuit of the ideal is all that matters; he must enact the ideal.

This makes a lot of sense. I wonder, however, if Ander's idea of justice could also be ascribed to the Moral Education Theory of punishment. What he tries to do, it seems, is not just free mages, but also convince other people that their treatment is unjust; that's the whole point of his manifesto, isn't it? He also seems to obsess over the opinions of others, including Hawke, Carver, Fenris etc... After he fails to convince the Grand Cleric (who happens to represent the neutral ground to the mages/templar debate) to support the mages, he eliminates that neutrality by literally blowing it up. Admittedly, this potentially convinces some people that mages are dangerous, but it also convinces some people that mages are desperate. Regardless, everyone is forced to choose a moral stance. 

Well, the MET more the practice of ethics (normative ethics) than the reason for ethics or being ethical (meta-ethics). So MET could work in a deontological view, a virtue theory view, utilitiarianism, even egoism or emotionalism. So the method Anders uses could be the MET, but it still doesn't explain the framework he's coming from; the best way to think about it is that MET is a tool that can be wielded by a philosophical system. That system will put limits and constraints on how the tool is to be used. 

With Anders, I would say that ethically speaking, he's bought into a rules-based virtue theory (which is really a contradiction, but I won't get into that little pet peeve of mine since it does exist within some academic circles). At his base, he believes in virtue theory, that absolutely injustice is wrong in all cases and must be fixed. However, psychologically (or existentially), Anders is obsessing over one point of this theory; namely that justice must be enacted. Thus, he ends up contradicting his own theory by killing innocent persons; to enact justice, he must become unjust and therefore a hypocrite (by his own standards he should kill himself). 

That's how I would degine Anders - and of course, I could be wrong.

Modifié par jb1983, 24 mars 2012 - 03:58 .

[jb1983]

I would add one more thing to this:

From an ethical standpoint, it could be that Anders is actually a failed Übermensch, cast in the light of a traditional Greek/Shakespearean tragic figure. Let me unpack what I mean by that:

The Übermensch (literally, "Super Man" or "overman," coined by Nietzsche) recognizes that there is no morality, there is no good and evil; there are simply actions. There is no truth, just interpretations.

In all of Nietzsche's ethical writings (Genealogy of Morality and Beyond Good and Evil are what I'm specifically thinking of, as too Human All Too Human and his fragments from Will to Power), the Übermensch forms his own ethical system and then convinces others to conform to it. He exerts his will, not by force, but by manipulation. He never has to resort to violence.

With Anders, this is exactly what we see. He seems to live by his own ethical code. Even mages who desire freedom are uneasy with Anders because he goes against established ethical norms. Throughout the game he is attempting to reframe the discussion about mages to get people to conform to his way (egoism).

He becomes a tragic figure, however, in that he ultimate uses physical power to achieve his ends. To Nietzsche, this is a relic of the past; men who result to physical abuses are simply scaring people into their ethical position, not actually changing their minds. Thus Anders becomes a tragic hero, one who had potential and could have won his way (one could see Anders dying as an innocent and peaceful martyr, which would be the hero's death), but instead chose the path of power, of frightening others into following his way of thinking. In short, in fighting tyranny Anders became a tyrant.

That is just one interpretation and probably has more to do with the fact that I'm on my umptheenth reading of "Thus Spake Zarathustra," so of course Nietzsche is on my mind.

[Dokarqt]

"Retributionitivism"? Really?

[jb1983]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

You say it yourself in what you write above: Anders is egocentric and Justice (which only goal is to do what's right) strengthens him in the feeling he has towards mages.

So then Anders is a tragic version of the Übermensch. 

I would only add that I said Anders would be an egoist, not necessarily egocentric. The two are not necessarily the same.

[Lynata]

Satyricon331 wrote...
The wiki links to a David Gaider interview where he says they're a form of blood magic.

In that case, it seems this is a secret kept from the templars themselves - or perhaps an example of the Chantry modifying it's teachings to suit contemporary needs, as I hinted at? Basically, they are not so much bending their own rules, they are convincing themselves that "this is different".

Of course, both approaches are hypocritical in their own way.

jb1983 wrote...
I would argue that it's not utilitarian because it's not about the "greater good." It's simply about having a stable society, and the rule for a stable society where freedom exists to exist requires that mages not have any power.

Hm, I would have thought that a stable society is the greater good. Still, I see where you're coming from - it basically seems to be that the Chantry not using mages for everything they could supply bars them from qualifying for the utilitarian approach, right?

Whilst I do find discussions such as these fascinating and like to read or talk about such topics, I haven't studied philosophy myself, so my understanding of the various terms is limited to a very basic level and I actually had to look up deontology on wikipedia. Still hope I can add something of value to the discussion.

Either way, it seems to be that the current perspective on mages has evolved over time; it is now a largely a deontological approach that has its roots in a consequential perspective of the survivors of the First Blight - and from time to time you have individuals within the Chantry hierarchy trying to modify its approach to the issue, in different directions (e.g. utilitarian -> make everyone a Tranquil, libertarian -> give them more freedoms, etc).
There may be a lot of overlap depending on what we're looking at in particular.

Modifié par Lynata, 24 mars 2012 - 05:22 .